Larry Brock · TranslatePolitics.ca

Oral Questions

Public Safety

2026-06-15

“The government failed. A man was killed. The killer was on probation. A shooter was on bail. Criminals are back on the streets. This is bad. The government should stop it. Keep violent offenders in jail.”

“I am mad about crime. A criminal is out on bail. This is because the other party is weak on crime. The other party's laws have failed. I want the other party to admit their laws don't work.”

Government Orders

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

2026-06-10

“I don't like the Senate's amendment. We all agreed people with recent crimes can't be sureties. Now the Senate wants judges to ignore that. The government is flip-flopping. Conservatives won't support this.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government's position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect. She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years. In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think the government changed the plan. The Senate had a specific focus, but now it's more general. Why did the government support that change instead of keeping the special exception?”

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-09

“You must support light sentences for child porn because you trust judges.”

“I want judges to get blamed. I want the government to get blamed even more. This bill is a very bad tool. Every bad guy will say the minimum penalty is too mean. Every single one will try to use that.”

“I'm not sure if that was a question. I agree that most of the bill is good for victims. Take out one part and we'd vote for all the rest.”

“You're wrong. We said we'd use notwithstanding to overrule the Supreme Court on child abuse laws.”

“I'm filling time with kind words about my riding. Then I say Bill C-16 doesn't go far enough. Mandatory minimums should stay mandatory. Judges went too easy on child sex offenders. We should lock them up longer, not make sentences weaker. Judges could give one-day sentences under Bill C-16. We warned the Justice Minister his changes would cause problems. Now drug dealers get softer sentences too. We should restore the old mandatory minimums we had before.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding. This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray. We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system? We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9. On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community. Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16. Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment. Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter. These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence. What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence. I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country. For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to give half my speaking time to someone else.”

Private Members' Business

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

2026-06-09

“I want dangerous murderers in maximum security prison. I don't like how the current government handles this. I think they're soft on crime. This bill will fix it. Victims and police want this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to debate an absolutely crucial piece of legislation that seeks to restore justice to Canada's correctional services system. It would ensure the most dangerous offenders and mass murderers receive the punishment they absolutely deserve. I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, for introducing this bill, an act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This legislation is a common-sense response to growing concerns among Canadians that after 11 years of the Liberal government, our justice system is failing them and their families. In May 2023, under the Liberal government, Correctional Services Canada transferred convicted serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security prison. As many would know, Bernardo is the monster responsible for the abduction and deaths of Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka and the assault of dozens of innocent women. For the friends, families and communities of the victims, his release from maximum security was a traumatizing injustice. Sadly, after over a decade of Liberal weak-on-crime laws, this is not an isolated incident. It is simply a sad pattern. Sadistic sex killer Luka Magnotta; the brutal murderer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty; serial rapist Russell Williams; and convicted triple murderers Dellen Millard and Mark Smich are to name a few. All these criminals are the worst of the worst, dangerous offenders who the Liberals have allowed to be released from maximum- and transferred to medium-security prisons. While there, they enjoy the comforts of hockey rinks, tennis courts, television and movies, while their victims' families grieve and bravely remember their loved ones every single day. They truly receive a life sentence. This is precisely why Bill C‑232 is so important. The bill would amend the release act to require that dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be assigned to maximum-security prisons. It marks a step toward a balanced justice system. The legislation would make two meaningful changes. First, it would bring back just, proportional language to the act. Bill C‑232 would reinstate the legal standard for prison assignments as “only the necessary restrictions” language that was successfully implemented under the Harper government in 2012. Of course, in 2019, the Liberals had to gut that. Bill C‑83 amended the legal standard to be the least restrictive environment. When asked about the impact of this weak standard, the former director general of the corrections and criminal justice directorate at Public Safety Canada said, “The Conservatives are absolutely right. Of course it contributed to Mr. Bernardo's transfer, because it is a principle that underlies all decisions...a fundamental one.” Reversing the detrimental impact of Bill C‑83 is crucial to rebalancing the Liberals' crooked sentencing regime. Second, Bill C‑232 would make it absolutely mandatory for dangerous offenders like Bernardo, Millard, Smich, Magnotta and Rafferty to be sentenced to maximum-security institutions. Sadly, only 13% of dangerous offenders in Canada are currently housed in maximum-security prisons. In 2023, of the 736 classified dangerous offenders in our country, 580 of them were classified to medium-security environments. Nearly 90% of dangerous offenders are currently housed in minimum-security or medium-security prisons. In November 2025, Dellen Millard, the convicted triple murderer of his father, Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma, was transferred from a maximum- to medium-security prison. I echo Tim Bosma's family's question: “If a three-time convicted 1st degree murderer is rewarded for ‘good behaviour’ in the Canadian penal system and moved to a lower security prison, who then is filling the maximum security prisons? White collar criminals?” It does not add up. On this side of the House, Conservatives are listening. Bill C‑232 is a response to the outrageous pattern of loose security classifications from the CSC. Police and victim advocates recognize this bill as a long-overdue step towards victim protection and bringing back confidence in our justice system. Niagara Regional Police Service Chief Bill Fordy sees every day the impact of violent crime on our victims and communities and the value of these discussions. Police and law enforcement officials across Canada understand the importance of building back a justice system that Canadians can trust. Alicia Googoo, a survivor of childhood violence and founder of the advocacy organization, Our Heart on Our Sleeve, understands the risks of failing to take dangerous offenders seriously. She urged Parliament to act, saying that public safety and accountability “have consequences for real children, families and survivors.” When Paul Bernardo was transferred in 2023, members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Quebec and Ontario were baffled by the decision, calling on the Liberal government to make a change. It did not. Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims' families, was clear that “legislative refinement” is warranted when it comes to Canada's most dangerous offenders, yet time and time again these Liberals ignore Canadians' call to action. The Liberals claim to be tough on crime, but they repeatedly support legislation that hollows out our justice system and prioritizes offenders' rights over victims' rights. Bill C‑14 would preserve the principle of restraint that allows violent offenders to walk free and terrorize their communities. Bill C‑16 introduces a mandatory minimum safety valve, fundamentally undermining the deterrence and denunciation of MMPs and essentially handing criminals a “get out of jail free” card. What is more, the Liberals claim to have changed, but the truth is that they are the exact same Liberals with the exact same policies as the past 11 years. When Bernardo was released from maximum-security prison, the Liberal public safety minister at the time absolved himself of responsibility. He claimed to have no idea the transfer was coming, which no one believed, and absolutely failed to remedy the impact of this decision for Canadians. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, the minister was shuffled out of cabinet, surely for this decision, yet the decision itself was never reversed. After that, the disgraced minister went on to be rewarded as the current Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Liberals now have an opportunity to finally reverse course. By supporting this legislation, the government could finally mean it when the Liberals say they have changed, that it is a new Liberal government and they want to keep Canadians safe. In 2022, homicides reached the highest rate in 30 years. In January 2026, an Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians believe crime has been rising in their communities over the last five years and do not feel safe. Now more than ever, we must protect our communities, safeguard victims' rights and stand up against the most evil offenders in the system. In the words of Marcia Penner, Kristen French's childhood friend, to Bernardo's accomplice, “You will never win. Kristen, Leslie, and Tammy win. Their memories are very much alive and will be forever.... These girls will always be remembered, loved, and cherished.” Bill C‑232 exists to protect those memories.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Justice

2026-06-04

“I'm saying you help criminals and ignore victims. I'm tough on crime. I want criminals out of the country. Victims need more help. When will you do more for victims?”

“I want to look tough on crime. The other party is not doing enough to protect people from criminals.”

Government Orders

Protecting Victims Act

2026-06-04

“I want more debate and witnesses for the bill. The other party won't let us talk more and call more people to speak. Their leader says he wants to work with everyone, but his minister is doing the opposite. I don't like that.”

“Fine. different word. They're still bad people.”

“I want to call the Liberals hypocrites on time allocation. I'm going to criticize the Prime Minister's messaging and call some Conservatives cowards.”

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“The government says it's tough on crime but it isn't. They had a chance to put back the minimum sentences they took out and they didn't. They're all talk.”

“You're right, the government missed a chance to change the rules for peace bonds in this bill. Section 810 peace bonds don't work well. That can be dangerous for women. The Liberals say they're tough on crime but this bill proves they don't do enough.”

“I want to look good by saying I did my job. The secretary didn't. She's wrong about everything. The bill lets judges ignore all minimum penalties except for murder or treason. A judge could give only one day in jail instead of a one-year mandatory minimum. And the government is okay with that. That's bad.”

“I don't know what I'm doing. I didn't pay attention to what the other guy said.”